The primary issue is how self contained or self sufficient you mean. Most of the issues in the experiments have the problem that it is functionally impossible to keep an entirely closed ecosystem in design balance in perpetuity. That's because the more self contained and self sufficient the system is the more things can go wrong to throw the balance out of cycle. That's typically an either mechanical failure or a biological one. When you get into mechanical level of "well we will have machines that can make the parts for the other machines" then you've most likely outstripped the ability for any specific location to be able to harvest resources.
Keep in mind that the level of balance we've achieved globally evolved over hundreds of millennia and that evolution is predicated on the notion that things will and do change. Not sure you can tame things to never change and not sure such a system would be socially stable if you did.
jackalope8112 t1_j8dvmz6 wrote
Reply to Would an arcology be conceivably possible? by peregrinkm
Well Earth is...
The primary issue is how self contained or self sufficient you mean. Most of the issues in the experiments have the problem that it is functionally impossible to keep an entirely closed ecosystem in design balance in perpetuity. That's because the more self contained and self sufficient the system is the more things can go wrong to throw the balance out of cycle. That's typically an either mechanical failure or a biological one. When you get into mechanical level of "well we will have machines that can make the parts for the other machines" then you've most likely outstripped the ability for any specific location to be able to harvest resources.
Keep in mind that the level of balance we've achieved globally evolved over hundreds of millennia and that evolution is predicated on the notion that things will and do change. Not sure you can tame things to never change and not sure such a system would be socially stable if you did.